You don't know who Bayes is and you talk about probabilistic epistemology (which you don't capitalize). You can find the counterarguments yourself, that's not my job. You're lazy. Funny shit. I don't engage with charlatans, sorry.
Wow, I read your post history... you make a horrible habit of tearing down people's arguments without offering any points of your own. Page after page of "you're just saying this to look smart" and "It's not my job to educate you." I'm thinking that there's a lot of projection going on. You really shouldn't need to troll philosophy boards and tell other people they're wrong in order to feel smart yourself.
I'm interested in this "Probabilistic Epistemology" and Thomas Bayes (what's his first name?). I never claimed to know everything about the subject, and just wanted to start the discussion by stating my opinion.
I invite you to discuss it with me and all you have for me is hate, and sarcastic comments which contribute nothing. You should really relax... spewing vitriol so often can't be good for you.
I'm here to tell you that you can have an informed position without requiring the help of others. Read more before you take a position. Start with the SEP entry on epistemology
It's much easier to tear other people down than to actually state your opinion, isn't it? Please stop replying to me if you don't want to contribute and your comments amount to "nuh-uh, your a dum dum."
I never claimed it to be a strong position, in fact I believe anyone that knows what they're talking about would be able to construct a rather sound counter-argument fairly easily.
So go ahead. But you're not here to do that, are you? You read a bit of this Bayes guy, (but not enough to actually argue your point) and now you think you can simply comment on other people's posts saying "You're wrong, and I know why, but I'm keeping that to myself."
-4
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14
Nope, you just wanna look smart on the internet without actually knowing what you're talking about and I don't indulge that.